TTTCITYBHOY
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 28 Dec 2009
- Messages
- 9,824
- Team supported
- CITY...who else
Why has nobody mentioned Tony Towers ?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Best City team since when - name the year.
- Thread starter Pam
- Start date
This team has potential, and it is an exciting team to watch, but let's win something first.
As for the past, I rate the team Tony Book assembled in the mid, late 70's as probably the best the club has ever had. Consistency was the order of the day, we won the League Cup, were desperately unlucky not to be Champions the following year, and we had some storming nights in Europe the following couple of years.
I also thought the team of 71-72 was something special as well, but it was not to be.
The team of Young, Oaks and Pardoe were good for a season in '68, when we were champions, but for the rest of the time, in the league at least, it was an average team.
Sure, we won cups galore, and it was happy time, but for consistency, it has to be the mid/late 70's team.
It's just my opinion, but I have been saying it for 40 odd years now!
As for the past, I rate the team Tony Book assembled in the mid, late 70's as probably the best the club has ever had. Consistency was the order of the day, we won the League Cup, were desperately unlucky not to be Champions the following year, and we had some storming nights in Europe the following couple of years.
I also thought the team of 71-72 was something special as well, but it was not to be.
The team of Young, Oaks and Pardoe were good for a season in '68, when we were champions, but for the rest of the time, in the league at least, it was an average team.
Sure, we won cups galore, and it was happy time, but for consistency, it has to be the mid/late 70's team.
It's just my opinion, but I have been saying it for 40 odd years now!
TTTCITYBHOY said:Why has nobody mentioned Tony Towers ?
Because Mike Horswill was better!
BrightwellsBoot
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 114
It's all comparative - this City team would beat any other City team from history - that goes without saying - every club in the country could say the same (for example - today's Leeds team would batter their 91/92 championship team) as the fitness and training levels have improved dramatically !! So . . .
Until we win the league - then we won't be better than 1968
Until we finish 2nd and 1 point behind the winners - then we won't be better than 1977
Until we finish 5th and 12 points behind the winners - then we won't be better than 1992
Simple !
Until we win the league - then we won't be better than 1968
Until we finish 2nd and 1 point behind the winners - then we won't be better than 1977
Until we finish 5th and 12 points behind the winners - then we won't be better than 1992
Simple !
Grand Master Ram Rod
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 28 Aug 2008
- Messages
- 6,376
Not a chance this is the best team we've ever had. It probably is in my lifetime but until you win something, the 68-70 team will always be considered the best.
Bill
Moderator
Fowlers Penalty Miss said:TTTCITYBHOY said:Why has nobody mentioned Tony Towers ?
Because Mike Horswill was better!
i remember horswill making his debut, with tueart, he had the better game of the two and i thought to myself, the expensive one of the deal was iffy:)
Grand Master Ram Rod said:Not a chance this is the best team we've ever had. It probably is in my lifetime but until you win something, the 68-70 team will always be considered the best.
Not really ALWAYS. If we build a team within the next few years that wins the Chimps, they will have surpassed 68-70 by definition.
Grand Master Ram Rod
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 28 Aug 2008
- Messages
- 6,376
Yeah I said until this team wins something.Pam said:Grand Master Ram Rod said:Not a chance this is the best team we've ever had. It probably is in my lifetime but until you win something, the 68-70 team will always be considered the best.
Not really ALWAYS. If we build a team within the next few years that wins the Chimps, they will have surpassed 68-70 by definition.
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
And I agree with you. The 1976/77 team had to operate in a much more competitive division (mainly dominated by Liverpool but including Derby, Leeds and Ipswich) whereas the 1968 one had only United to worry about really. Plus that team never came close to repeating the league triumph. If not for King Colin's injury that 70's team would have matched Liverpool easily.Fowlers Penalty Miss said:This team has potential, and it is an exciting team to watch, but let's win something first.
As for the past, I rate the team Tony Book assembled in the mid, late 70's as probably the best the club has ever had. Consistency was the order of the day, we won the League Cup, were desperately unlucky not to be Champions the following year, and we had some storming nights in Europe the following couple of years.
I also thought the team of 71-72 was something special as well, but it was not to be.
The team of Young, Oaks and Pardoe were good for a season in '68, when we were champions, but for the rest of the time, in the league at least, it was an average team.
Sure, we won cups galore, and it was happy time, but for consistency, it has to be the mid/late 70's team.
It's just my opinion, but I have been saying it for 40 odd years now!
Chelmsford City
Well-Known Member
Prestwich_Blue said:And I agree with you. The 1976/77 team had to operate in a much more competitive division (mainly dominated by Liverpool but including Derby, Leeds and Ipswich) whereas the 1968 one had only United to worry about really. Plus that team never came close to repeating the league triumph. If not for King Colin's injury that 70's team would have matched Liverpool easily.Fowlers Penalty Miss said:This team has potential, and it is an exciting team to watch, but let's win something first.
As for the past, I rate the team Tony Book assembled in the mid, late 70's as probably the best the club has ever had. Consistency was the order of the day, we won the League Cup, were desperately unlucky not to be Champions the following year, and we had some storming nights in Europe the following couple of years.
I also thought the team of 71-72 was something special as well, but it was not to be.
The team of Young, Oaks and Pardoe were good for a season in '68, when we were champions, but for the rest of the time, in the league at least, it was an average team.
Sure, we won cups galore, and it was happy time, but for consistency, it has to be the mid/late 70's team.
It's just my opinion, but I have been saying it for 40 odd years now!
No doubt about that at all, and as I said earlier England missed him as well. When you think that the Czechs won the Euros in 76 having knocked us out, but we beat them in the first group game 3-0 with The King scoring two that night, then he and also Gerry Francis were injured and the centre midfield was decimated. We could easily have won that ourselves, he was by a mile the best player in England at the time of his injury, and losing him and Francis, who was also never the same after his injury, was a huge blow. Today that would be like England losing two of Shrek, Gerrard and Lampard.